Asymmetrical Information

The war is going to be the war, regardless of the reporting or propaganda. What does matter, is the allegations of correct reporting. If a journalist in country reports on a true event, and reports just the facts, the reportage can still be up for debate.

It does matter if its accurate, and accurate means more than facts. Anyone who writes knows you can write a perfectly true article (factual) and slant it to try and cause a reader to feel sympathy or solidarity with one side or another, or a person who is painted to be a victim. It is this purposeful desire to elicit the right emotion or thought processes that is of issue with most bloggers.

What is recognized by all professionals in the business, at least until recently, is when someone starts with a scrap of truth and weaves a whole cloth of events from it. This has traditionally been considered to be unethical. Such as the Rathergate deal. Now, however, we are sliding into a morass where even know fabrications are okay, as long as it forwards your political advantage. And that thinking is death to a free society.

"whether soldiers/Republicans or journalists/Democrats are the bigger jerks"

Can you imagine why this construction might grate on people who might otherwise be receptive to your point?

Quiggin has missed the larger story, that dispute such as this one are part of the war, in this case the propaganda aspect of the war. Hard core leftists have adopted the war as a vehicle to undermine American society, despite the need to support the most brutal, fascistic, and misogynistic theocrats this planet has ever produced.

Nothing could make their aims clearer. Their actions on this war make it unarguably clear that they don't give a tinker's dam about freedom, democracy, justice, peace, or anything else - just undermining this society as a necessary prerequisite to imposing their socialist utopia. The proof is their willingness to jettison all of the above at the drop of a rag to make political hay.

I'm not talking about your garden variety Kumbaya-singing Democrat/liberal. They're just too soft in the head to recognize they're being manipulated. I'm talking about the hard core, straight-up revolutionary types, of the Angela Davis (whom I know, and know she means business - believe me), Lynne Stewart, National Lawyers Guild ilk, the type who don't consider Che Guevara as a fashion accessary but rather as a model. We Berkeley grads know this type only too well (I remember well one evening seeing through the window members of a local church/peace house toasting the fall of Saigon. The image pisses me off to this day.)

Discrediting American institutions - the government, the military, the university, marriage, the lot - is part of their strategy, because they consider things have to get worse before they can make them better.

That is why this issue is important. We can't let the leftists smear our troops again without fighting back. If the troops are guilty of misconduct, by all means come down on them like a ton of bricks. But if not, do the same to those who smear them without proof.

Occam's Beard,

Whoa there buddy.

You are using events that happened 30 some years ago to castigate those who disagree with you today.

If you feel so strongly about Bush's dirty little war, then why don't you volunteer to fight so some parents child may come home.

If you feel so strongly about Bush's dirty little war, then why don't you volunteer to fight so some parents child may come home.

And what "child" would that be?

Mr. Fusion,

Since when did I become a "child" to you? We are grown men and women (consenting adults) who joined out of our own free will. I guess it is beyond your kinds ability to understand that calling warriors "children" is insulting.

You are using events that happened 30 some years ago to castigate those who disagree with you today.

Nope. Wrong on both counts, both the time and the castigation reference.

Lynne Stewart was sentenced on February 10, 2005 - something short of 30 years ago - for sneaking messages out to her fellow terrorists.

Moreover, I wasn't castigating the hard core leftists (much as I would generally love to do so, as I hold in richly deserved contempt), but rather characterizing the types of people I was referring to.

If you feel so strongly about Bush's dirty little war, then why don't you volunteer to fight so some parents child may come home.

The reflexive "chickenhawk" response is the unmistakable sign of a brain-dead liberal. Do you support gay rights? Can you in good conscience do so without smoking a few poles yourself? (Unless, of course, you've already qualified, in which case the comment is moot.) You see the point.

Plus, do the math, Einstein. Someone in Berkeley at the fall of Saigon now qualifies to join AARP, not the military. But I would if I could.

Quiggin's point would be more impressive if he had said all this before there were charges that the stories were fabricated. Does he think that, if all of Beauchamp's claims checked out, that they wouldn't matter very much either? Or does he think that they don't matter only if they're false?

Sorry, neglected to include my main point: do you then agree that Al Qaeda & Co. do represent the most brutal, fascistic, and misogynistic theocrats this planet has ever produced, or no?

If so, how can you possibly justify the hard left's "solidarity" (as they would put it) with them? See zombietime.com is you doubt that solidarity for a minute.

Oh I see - it's absolutely critical that people have their facts straight before they publish something.

But that doesn't apply to you. You're allowed to make charges that Beauchamp made the whole thing up.

Even though you don't have one scrap of evidence that you did. So if Beauchamp's claims do turn out to be true (and if you actually read the article - it's not that hard to think they ARE true, since his claims are pretty minor), then it looks like YOU are the unethical one. Becuase you and the other wingnuts have said Beauchamp is a liar without one iota of evidence.

I thought that in journalism, extremism in pursuit of truth is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of accountability is no virtue. But I guess that's only true if what's published looks like it was from Full Metal Jacket.

I guess extremism in pursuit of truth is a vice, and moderation in pursuit of accountability is a virtue.

Downtown Lad: Do you have a scrap of evidence that Jimmy Hoffa isn't buried in my backyard? I dare you to call me a liar without one iota of evidence.

I think a significant point is being missed here. Just because a number of people decide to point their fingers at something and assert that it's untrue or dishonest is an insufficient reason to start questioning the veracity of the author. Particularly when the people pointing their fingers are the sort intellectually dishonest, fundamentally unserious ideologues that are behind this particular campaign, the correct response is to push back - they should have to back up their assertions before anyone takes them seriously. Otherwise they're just wagging the dog, and they'll do it as often as they can in support of an ideological mission.

Beauchamp could be lying - so could anyone else. This didn't become an issue because a valid question was raised. It came up because people who believe they have a vested interest in a different narrative than the one he was offering chose to make a lot of noise and hoped other people would take notice - which apparently we have.

Perhaps it's easier to think of the men and women who serve in our nation's military as "children" when Cindy Sheehan serves as the archetype of a military mom.

Minor issues?
Sexual harrassment of a wounded comrade in public, violating the Geneva Convention, creating hatred (and costing Uncle Sam money) by running over stalls and homes, endangering the lives of comrades. These may be minor to you, but they are not minor to the military. Any officer or NCO who let this slide would, at best, have their career riuned, at worst, would.cost.lives.

Besides the multitude of inconsistent technical details, everyone is acting in a self-destructive manner. Convoy discipline is absolutely vital in protecting yourself from IEDs.

If you want to talk about how war turns our children into monsters, don't make up stories, the military investigates and prosecutes enough. Heck, I'm sure 10% of the LIttle Sisters of the Poor are screwed up as well.

Oh I see - it's absolutely critical that people have their facts straight before they publish something.

But that doesn't apply to you. You're allowed to make charges that Beauchamp made the whole thing up.

Even though you don't have one scrap of evidence that you did. So if Beauchamp's claims do turn out to be true (and if you actually read the article - it's not that hard to think they ARE true, since his claims are pretty minor), then it looks like YOU are the unethical one. Becuase you and the other wingnuts have said Beauchamp is a liar without one iota of evidence.
And I see the morons are starting to check in. That people can say such stupid things is a sorry reflection on our educational system, which I'm embarrassed to say I've been a part of.

This has nothing to do with my ethics. Of course I'm allowed to question Beauchamp's claims - that's expressing skepticism. In effect, I'm saying to Beauchamp "Prove it!" His claims, on their face, are hard to believe, there's reason to disbelieve Beauchamp (the creative writing background, the atrocity stories written from Germany, the admitted desire to win literary chops), and there's no evidence – apart from his allegations – that any of this actually happened. If told you everyone on the DNC is in the pay of the Revolutionary Communist Party, would you be unethical to question those claims, when you only had my word for it?

Q: What's the operative word in your silly post?

A: "IF"

As I've said before, and as all grownups will appreciate, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES UPON THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSERTION.

Got it? Think - it's not everyone else's role to debunk nonsense. Intelligent people default to skepticism. It's the role of the person making the assertion to substantiate it. That's what we're waiting for…and waiting for.

You don't know whether Beauchamp's allegations are true, neither do I (I'm the first to admit it), but neither does Foer. How do I know the last of these?

Because if he done his job properly, he'd have blown the skeptics out of the water out of the water immediately, because he'd have already asked and received satisfactory answers to all the questions that have been raised now. That's the way scientists (and journalists) work (or should work), speaking within the facts, not publishing whatever crosses their desk, on the outside chance there might be something to it.

Yet we wait. Which proves the point: Foer published scurrilous accusations when he didn't know – for sure - that they were true. And for failing to do his job, Foer should pay with his career.

Bonus question: would skepticism have benefited you when Jesse MacBeth trotted out his nonsense? I'll take an embarrassed silence as a "yes."

But though I disapprove of the way that both sides have turned this into a battle in some larger culture war over whether soldiers/Republicans or journalists/Democrats are the bigger jerks, it still matters a great deal whether the story was right.

So it only matters to the journalistic profession whether the story was right? Are you saying that it doesn't matter to the military? Your comment suggests a very cynical worldview. To paraphrase what you're saying, credibility doesn't matter to the military, because we all know that the military has none. But I have to wonder why, if you are that cynical of the military, you bother to give a damn about the credibility of the fourth estate.

AemJeff,

I'm pointing a finger. Am I intellectually dishonest?

I served as a Military Policeman back in the 80s. My reaction to Abu Grahib is still to this day that those sons of bitches should be tried for treason and shot. Does that give me enough cred to question these little fairy tales that this twerp is peddling?

You see, although I have technical questions galore about the stories, (my very first MVA involved a tank that ran over a pick up truck that was in the tank's blind spot--not apples to apples exactly, but close enough to question aiming for a dog on the wrong side of the driver of a Bradley), the biggest smear I see taking place is against those not directly involved in the stories.

Are there any GIs that are dumb/jerk/insensitive enough to kill a dog just for sport? I have no doubt.
Are there any GIs that are dumb/jerk/insensitive enough to put a child's skull on his head? Yep.
Are there any GIs that are dumb/jerk/insensitive enough to make fun of a person on their own side who has been horribly disfigured by an IED explosion? I'd like to hope not, but my world wouldn't fall apart tomorrow if I found out it really did happen.

No, the slander comes in the fact that not one of the people in ST's stories who witnessed what was going on said anything. That's me he is slandering. That's the friends that I served with. That's my neighbors he is slamming.

Yeah, I'm pointing the finger. I'm asking him to prove his claims. If they're true, I'll be calling for their heads as well.

How is that intellectually dishonest?

Jane, you should read up on what TigerHawk had to say on the issue a week ago:

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2007/07/iraq-resolving-coercionintelligence.html

Basically, the perception does matter, because the undecideds are going to break for the side which they perceive to be rational in dealing out violence. Articles like the one mentioned are thus shaping a perception that leads to loss of support among the undecideds, hurting intelligence gathering in turn and leading to less targeted counter-insurgency efforts that further drive away the undecideds.

Really, you should read the whole thing.

apex

I think a significant point is being missed here. Just because a number of people decide to point their fingers at something and assert that it's untrue or dishonest is an insufficient reason to start questioning the veracity of the author.

Surely you jest. No, strike that -- surely you drink. There's a story of real world, sordid malfeasance at stake here; the only question is whether the culprit is the United States military, or merely a pathetic man with an agenda and a stunning lack of scruples. The "veracity of the author" is EXACTLY the question, and it is a relevant one, your flippant dismissal notwithstanding.

I'm really saddened by the idea that this is all totally plausible, because after all, thats how those soldiers act over there.
If the facts aren't true, they do speak to the reality of how THEY are. Sort of like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

"The war is going to be the war, regardless of the reporting or propaganda."

This is completely false, and especially false in an insurgent war like we face in Iraq. The news/propaganda (yes, they are related) affects public opinion and morale in both the USA and Iraq.

Yes, they do have access to US domestic media - I live in Taiwan, and often they will run a US domestic story if its interesting. In fact, they often make them even more brief and thus even more vital to be correct the first time.

In WW II, the press corp was not allowed to show any photos of US casualties (and there were a lot, lot more than in Iraq.) Finally in 1943 or 1944, when the government thought we were getting complacent they allowed the press to show a photo of a dead marine face down in the sand on some Pacific beach.

But really, the media and the news never ever affects a war, right? I guess FDR was an idiot.

"I'm really saddened by the idea that this is all totally plausible, because after all, thats how those soldiers act over there."

I'm wondering what chops good 'ol monkeyboy has with making a wee bit of an overstatement like this? Is it the preponderance of 'objective reporting' that you see on CNN an HNN? mayhap its the CBS/NBC/ABC we're all the same, or the insipid FNN? For you to say what you did, highlights the Left's lack of credibility with the vast center that is the US.

As they say, 'War is Hell,' and this is true. From the earliest reported major wars (say Trojan War), through the later ancient wars, Roman, all the way through to the modern era, War is not for the weak of heart. Yes, propaganda can affect it, and it has more of an affect today than ever in the past. Still, the kernel of truth is the same, with the streak of animal barbarity that exists in ALL of us (for some it is just a little closer to the surface than in others).

That said, I seem to remember the Left's paragons have killed so many more innocents in this world (in excess than 30 million in just the last century) than anyone who has represented the Classical American viewpoint of Liberty and Freedom. Before you dip your arrows in curare, a quick prediction...the Left's current group they are solidifying around is fanatical Islamic jihadists, as exemplified by that forward-thinking leader in Iran. The Left wants a breakdown in society so they can seize control, ala the Russian Revolution, and remake society in their draconian image.

"Quiggin's point would be more impressive if he had said all this before there were charges that the stories were fabricated. "

Actually, I was drafting this post well before this particular eruption. As I said in the post, this kind of thing is going on constantly, and at great length. The absurd Jamil Hussein case alone ran for months and ended producing nothing, certainly not apologies.

To be clear, I don't object to questioning of media reports, per se, it's this massively disproportionate response to a handful of reports, all giving bad news from Iraq, and in the midst of thousands of others telling much the same story.

'Massively disproportionate response'? This guy is sliming the people in his unit, and presenting the American military as a bunch of psychos. If you think getting angry over that is 'disproportionate', that's your problem.

And frankly, it seems like you DO object to questioning of media reports - at least, when the media reports are presenting a narrative (Iraq's a disaster, it's all Bush's fault) that you don't want challenged.

Falkyon:

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Do bad things happen in war? Sure, but to beleive that all of this went unpunished, is to believe that every single serving soldier on FOB Falcon condones this. It goes against my experience in the military, where the vast majority that I have met are good people. To my mind, this is like someone seeing a dubious report on inner-city violence, and responding "of course it's true, those people do that stuff all the time."

The reports I see on inner city violence usually provide tthe names of the victims, perps, and the author. They would be easy to fact check, but I have no reason to disbelieve them.

This case has what, the pseudonym of the author?

I resent her equating the soldiers with republicans. She throws away the validity of her question with that association right there. This scott beauchamp saga is the latest in a series of wingnut circle jerks to make a mountain of a molehill while their numbers continually decrease and the ideology they espouse slowly dwindles down the drain along with their credibility.

"Quiggin's point would be more impressive if he had said all this before there were charges that the stories were fabricated. "

"Actually, I was drafting this post well before this particular eruption."

Like the guy said in the 1st quote...

MB: I agree with your last post. Thank you for the clarification.

"Nor do I think that the story (whether true or not) gave aid and comfort to the enemy. The Arab/Muslim world already thinks pretty poorly of us. The thing that generates outrage there is accounts of us hurting civilians, not stories about chasing dogs with Bradleys or making fun of contractors. The skull story might hurt, a bit, if anyone hears it, but forgive me if I am sceptical that Osama et. al. have taken subscriptions to TNR."

You surely cannot be under the impression that this story was confected for the consumption of "Osama et. al." It was written for the sole purpose of generating (false) outrage at the war and Chimpy McHalliburtonhitler.

Reagan Fan, you're promoting a fallacy as a rhetorical trick. First you tick off a bunch of points on which you allow that if he were telling the truth you wouldn’t be shocked. I’m paraphrasing. Then you shift into the personal, using your own unrelated history to try and score a gratuitous point. You haven't been "slandered," you obviously weren't there. Wouldn’t you call that intellectual dishonesty?

anony-mouse, anybody’s veracity can be questioned. Rhetorical games played by ideological opponents aren’t a sufficient means. Try asking better questions.

And so another comments section degenerates.

No doubt there's some rightwing blowhard who screamed "Liar!" from the start, but the questions I saw raised about the Beauchamp story were exactly that, questions. You go back and look at the original posts-- Weekly Standard, Blackfive, wherever-- and they're rooted very much in specifics: whether a Bradley could be driven like that (from an engineering standpoint, and without repercussions), whether a soldier could be confused as to whether a scarred female was a soldier or a civilian based on dress, whether a baby skull could fit on a head under a helmet. Then they progressed to trying to identify a unit where these things would have happened. There may have been some sneering along the way, and certainly there was comment about whether The New Republic was being fed what it wanted to hear (either by a soldier or a fraud). But essentially it was good investigative journalism rooted in inconsistencies in the story. Object to that and you better go remove the "Question Authority" sticker from your Prius...

Your post seems to indicate that people only want people whose opinion is different than their's to be proven to be lying. Sorry, I don't buy it for a second. I consider myself a conservative. I consider myself an independent. And I have biases - everyone does. But I make every effort to ascertain truth. I want to know if the the National Review is lying to me just as much as I want to know if the The New Republic is lying to me. I may be more inclinded to believe The New Republic is lying since the left has been caught in many more lies lately than the right. And the right seems to be guided more by a moral sense that does not believe that the ends justify the means which is something the amoral left seems to believe - and one of the main reasons a consider myself conservative. But bottom line, I seek the truth and if someone is lying, no matter their political point of view, I want to know it. And I believe most people would say the same thing.

Eric

To Beauchamp's defenders, who claim that his critics "don't have a scrap of evidence that he lied," I can only say, are you kidding?

The improbability of much of what he said was a tipoff, i.e., you can't drive a Bradley vehicle in the way he described, it's highly unlikely that a driver would get away with that kind of driving since a vehicle commander must supervise all movements of the vehicle, it's highly unlikely that a soldier would insult someone openly if he could not be sure of their position or rank, it's highly unlikely that anyone could conceal a skull cap under his helment. But add to that the points of fact that have been raised that contradict his story; i.e., no mass grave has ever been found in the area he described, and no female contractor or any other female with the type of disfigurement he described has ever been seen at FOB Falcon by anyone else who has been there over the previous year, and FOB Falcon is reportedly not that big a place.

And other circumstances, such as the fact that he was already writing stories of war atrocities very similar to this even before he left for Iraq, also undercut his credibility.

So anyone who says there's no basis for charging Beauchamp with making stuff up being willfully ignorant.

Sorry to come in on the middle of a conversation, but reading that "Editors should live in fear that something they have published is wrong" seems like a conceit from yesteryear in a world where Michael Isikoff is no less employable the day after his Koran-in-the-toilet story than the day before.

When just this week Isikoff's Koran-in-the-toilet apologist, Evan Thomas, recapitulated Rather's 'fake but true' explanation for why journalists piled onto the initial allegations of rape at Duke (it's racial, man), I finally concluded that journalism is as corrupt and moribund as the medieval church.

These people are afraid of nothing. But have times really changed?

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast." - Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

AemJeff,

Thin skinned and illogical, perhaps, but not intellectually dishonest.

I take a lot of pride in having served in the military. Most vets do. I see in his stories an accusation that everyone around the evil-doers were enabling cowards or sociopaths themselves.

That makes me feel slandered. When I read what the MPs did at Abu Grahib, I took that as a slap in my face. Should I? Perhaps not. I wasn't there. The entire city of Indianapolis took pride in what their football team did when they won the Super Bowl. Should they?

If I implied that you were being intellectually dishonest, I apologize for poor writing skills.

My point was that not every one questioning his story is doing so for nefarious reasons.

Whenever someone writes something I don't like, I:

1. Question the accuracy of the reporter.
2. Attribute it to the liberal media.
3. Hold my fingers in my ears while singing a happy tune.

Reagan Fan, thanks. Nicely put. I want to respond in substance, but I've got to get to work. I'll do so later.

The Beauchamp artical is a metaphorical IED in the American culture war, for Mrs. Galt to try and separate the artical from the greater context is just allowing her to create a straw man to destroy.

The playbook is the the same play book that was used in Vietnam. First drive public support for the war to low levels, which includes support for the administration and leadership directing the war, then start attacking the troops themselves, after driving down public support for the troops, the congress has the ability to cut off funding regardless of potential for mass killings or damage inflicted on US credibility with other nations.

Therefore each little mini attack on the troops, in domestic media, is closely examined to verify and characterize it properly, by pro-America citizens.

The left cries bloody murder if you try to characterize them as a whole, by what thier most radical elements are doing and saying, but they have no trouble at all demonizing the military by its criminal 1%.

You know you are a lefty when:

You ALWAYS question the veracity / motivation of any right leaning author.

You NEVER question the veracity / motivation of any left leaning author.

If this is you then you are NOT objective and are merely advancing a partisan agenda.

------------

Do I believe everything that comes out of the White House?

No, they are pursuing a political agenda and may not be completely forthcoming.

Do I believe everything that is critical of the White House?

No, they too are pursuing a political agenda (even if they are journalists) and may not be completely forthcoming.

To be clear, I don't object to questioning of media reports, per se, it's this massively disproportionate response to a handful of reports, some of them possibly even being true, all giving bad news from Iraq, and in the midst of thousands of others telling much the same story.

Fixed that for ya.

Wow. Getting deep in here. "Thousands of others"?? Of atrocity stories?? Googling the news doesn't mean squat. As I look at the search results, I'm seeing CNN International, Washington Post, NY Times/Boston Globe/IHT, BBC. The only one missing is Al Jazeera. Too upbeat and pro-American, I guess.

Try this one on for size:

"To be clear, I don't question media reports, per se, it's this massively disproportionate anti-American prejudice that reports only bad news from Iraq, and in the midst of others telling the exact opposite story."

(I've yet to see a story on any of the Medal of Honor winners in Iraq, or on the Iraqis who are grateful to us for removing Saddam, and they can't all be blubbing over his loss, right? Those stories have been buried lower than whale crap.)

Or this one:

"The problem is that most journalists are frustrated creative writers, but lacking the talent to make a living at that, and not knowing anything of substance in any particular field, they sit in a bar in the Green Zone and get fed story lines and staged photos by stringers moonlighting from their day jobs as terrorists. The journalists then work their magic and churn out the anti-American propaganda their editors crave, and consider themselves lucky not to be churning out the bodice-ripper Harlequin romances that lonely women crave."

You're correct, that the right is emotionally invested in believing that America is basically good. Not perfect, but generally good. Unfortunately, the problem is that the left is emotionally invested in the opposite. They're lightning quick to believe anything bad about this country (see Jesse Macbeth), and viscerally opposed to believing anything good. The right, of course, is the converse. Neither attitude is absolutely correct; the question is which one is closer to reality.

I think that it's the latter.

I have to wonder what motivates the left in its vitriol for America. Do they think they will curry favor with radical Muslims, who will then leave us alone? (They can't be that naïve, can they? Tell me they can't.) Are they just enchanted by the idea of victimhood that they've raised to religious status, and therefore wish us to be victims too? Are they trying to prove they're cool and sophisticated by adopting a contrarian stance? Do they think that if we act like Europeans, the Europeans will love us? (Hell, the Europeans hate each other, never mind us, as the last two millennia of history proves. And, in any case, love plus $3.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.) Or are a few hard core Leninists/Maoists/Trotskyists/whatevers stampeding a herd toward a socialist utopia?

I'd sincerely like to know.

Eric said

"But bottom line, I seek the truth and if someone is lying, no matter their political point of view, I want to know it. And I believe most people would say the same thing."

Count me among those who want to know when someone is lying to me. It is true that this particular story does not address our policy in Iraq, but as citizens, we depend upon our institutions to provide us accurate information so that we can make intelligent decisions about policy and convey them to our elected representatives.

One of the criticisms of the military in the Vietnam era was that they did not provide accurate information about the war. I think the military makes a tremendous effort to provide accurate information about the war in Iraq, but some media organizations seem to be playing fast and loose with the truth. This matters a great deal to me becasue I take seriously my responsibility to the troops that serve our country. Whether I am going to write to my representatives to voice my support for the surge or to ask them to vote for withdrawing the troops, I want to know that the reasons supporting my position are based in fact, not fiction masquerading as journalism.

The New Republic is a well respected publication, but they seem to have been caught (once again) publishing fiction as fact. While there may be some elements of truth in Beauchamp's stories, I still must conclude that I cannot rely on the editors of TNR to provide accurate information on events in Iraq. If the problem was limited to TNR, this would be their problem, not mine. Unfortunately, other media organizations have also published false and misleading stories, so it is hard for me, a citizen, to know where to turn. That is why this story matters- because a lot of people are trying to figure out who they can trust and who they should regard as entertaining but unreliable.

Sad to say, the furor over this demonstrates to me the gulf between vets (and Active) and some of the Left in the USA.

At the start, we have Beauchamp outlining repeated acts of brutality by elements of the US Military as though he, personally witnessed them. More tellingly, no member of the military is reprimanded.

I can tell you stories of military misconducts -- and the Article 15's and courts-martial they received. Notice any difference ?

From Beauchamp's story-telling, the inference is easily that this sort of behavior is (a) not unusual, and (b) at least tacitly condoned. If you see anything in the TNR indicating that Beauchamp outlined this behavior as anything else, please post it here. But as I read it, he's not horrified or surprised, and neither is anyone else (except the woman and presumably the crushed pooch). In fact, thematically, his/their Apocalypse Now experiences have numbed him/them.

This was exactly the point the John Barnes (no fan of the war) outlined in his semiotic analysis. It's the Apocalypse Now point of view of the military, almost exclusively reserved for those who despise the military.

If one's view of the US Military at war is straight out of Apocalypse Now, Beauchamp's tale strikes one as eminently sensible: "War is hell, and turns soldiers in to unthinking, unfeeling brutes." Thus, for anyone in the Apocalypse Now crowd, there is a presumption on one's part that Beauchamp is obviously telling the truth, and needs no corroboration, and anyone who calls him a liar has a burden to prove that allegation.

Further, there is a tendency by many on the Left to believe that, since some of us (generally vets or Active) called "bullsh*t! Prove It!" on Beauchamp, we believe that the war is just, and/or wonderful, and/or being executed brilliantly.

It appears that many on the Left cannot seem to grasp that our military experience and/or pride in the service transcends how we may feel about a particular war or military action. I don't have to support the war to defend an organization I proudly gave many years of my life to. And, knowing many in active duty today, I know that they are even finer examples than I was in my day. (Okay, enough hoo-yah!)

While some on the Left seem to believe that the actions that Beauchamp writes about are commonplace. Those of us who serve or have served know that the actions that Beauchamp is engaging in himself are what is somewhat familiar (though not really commonplace). There are those who are ill-suited for military service who still enlist (and are allowed to enlist) and still make it through Basic and MCT or AIT or what have you. I wish we were better at weeding them out. But that's a different topic.

Do I know Beauchamp is unsuited for the military ? Well, see his blog for his own comments and judge for yourself. I will say that I (and the military) have little time for whining, and most troops get over it be the time them make it out of Basic. But I digress. . .

Add to this that most active and vets have seen enough small but telling inconsistencies in Beauchamp's accounts and we are left with a feeling like listening to Baron von Munchausen. Everything he writes could be true, but unlikely.

As an example, if (hypothetically) "Joe" in country told me that one of the guys in his company shot dogs whenever he got bored, using IA weapons, and he'd already been counseled about it, I would not doubt it. Why ?
(a) bored GIs are dangerous,
(b) dogs are not revered in the M.E., and the target of lots of abuse if there's not enough rats available (don't ask),
(c) Iraqi ammunition is probably not controlled, so he wouldn't need to account for ammo, and
(d) while inhumane, shooting a dog in an area where your presence is already known does not seem tactically stupid to me. It might be, but it doesn't immediately strike me that way.

In contrast, for reasons that have appeared in many other places, killing dogs with a Brad seems highly improbable. Not impossible, just unlikely in Iraq in the manner Beauchamp described (though, interestingly, perhaps not so improbable in Germany, where people don't stuff explosives into dead animal carcases).

Beauchamp's claims are somewhat serious, stereotypical of military-bashing shibboleths, and they seem unsupported and in some cases highly unlikely to active or vets.

But if you believe the Apocalypse Now scene, you are left with a "why on Earth would you ever challenge Beauchamp ? It must be because you support the war!"

Mostly, we challenge him because some of us have seen enough "bad-*ss-wannabes" that we tend to recognize the type. See, for a spectacular example, Jesse MacBeth.

Beauchamp is NOT MacBeth, not by a long shot, but unless you are in the Apocalypse Now crowd, his accusations of wrong-doing require some measure of proof. A failure to provide such corroboration is telling. More telling (of TNR) is that such corroboration is not immediately at hand.

But then, I'm confident that TNR does get it's ideas about the military from Apocalypse Now. That's why they felt they needed no proof, and that's why they couldn't instantly respond to any challenges.

It's in the military's hands now, where it should have been (rather than in the TNR), and the truth will out.

anony-mouse, anybody’s veracity can be questioned. Rhetorical games played by ideological opponents aren’t a sufficient means. Try asking better questions.

Agreed; so, stop playing said games. Your statement of the following --

I think a significant point is being missed here. Just because a number of people decide to point their fingers at something and assert that it's untrue or dishonest is an insufficient reason to start questioning the veracity of the author.

-- is little better than a red herring, garnished with a seasoned wisdom that is, regrettably, irrelevant to this context. Maybe you just heard about this story and haven't had a chance to catch up yet, but in fact, the "better questions" HAVE been asked, and discussed at length here and elsewhere. The story has noteworthy credibility problems from every angle, whether engineering, social, or expressed motivations.

Thus, the veracity of the author is exactly the question, since it looks to be poor based on no small amount of available evidence to date. Which leads me to wonder: what exactly is your point?

Hmmmm.

1. "To be clear, I don't object to questioning of media reports, per se, it's this massively disproportionate response to a handful of reports, all giving bad news from Iraq, and in the midst of thousands of others telling much the same story."

What silly nonsense. So if this Beauchamp's articles had resulted in a *few* shouts of outrage then you'd be happy with this? Your position isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's a complete piece of BS.

Outrageous conduct should result in outrageous condemnation.

That I have to explain it is frankly ridiculous.

2. Quite a few people here probably have never ridden in a combat-ready armored vehicle with a squad of infantry. It's fun, but not comfortable. This isn't just because you've got a number of fellow soldiers in the vehicle but also a lot of gear for the functioning and fighting of the vehicle and *supplies* which tend to end up everywhere. The ammo cans, empty or full, alone can be a massive pain in the rear end and any sort of spastic driving will cause these ammo cans to scatter all over the vehicle.

I can assure you that if I had gotten an ammo can in the knee because the driver was aiming for a dog, that driver would be facing serious trouble.

Which points out what a piece of nonsense this all is.

The reports I see on inner city violence usually provide tthe names of the victims, perps, and the author. They would be easy to fact check, but I have no reason to disbelieve them.

Huh. Try this one:

The police were called today to the home of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public, 620 Eighth Avenue, NYC, and found Mrs. Public dead. A 10mm Gluck automatic revolver was found next to the body. Mrs. Public had suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head, which the Westchester County medical examiner determined to be self-inflicted; however, the cause of death was ruled to be blunt object trauma to the third metatarsal.

A toxicology screen revealed Nurofen, guaranine, paracetamol, and theobromine in Mrs. Public's blood. "She had a virtual drugstore inside her," said Dr. R. Quincy, the presiding examiner. "It's no wonder the poor lady took her own life."

Police chief Clancy Wiggums said that Mr. Public was not a suspect in his wife's death. "He has no motive," Chief Wiggums declared at the scene, "unless you count her one gazillion dollar fortune." Chief Wiggums vowed to keep searching for the real killers.

Now, is there anything in that story that made you go, "Hmmm"?

Well, dammit, those two paragraphs following the blockquote were meant to be blockquoted as well, and they were in the preview. Rassenfrassen software.

Hmmmm.

"I can tell you stories of military misconducts -- and the Article 15's and courts-martial they received. Notice any difference ?"

Very true. I only spent a few years in the USMC and in my unit 4 Marines got court-martials and I can't even count how many got Article 15's in only 2 years of my time in. Heck I got an Article 15 for getting a truck stuck in sand pit.

So yes stuff happens because soldiers, Marines, are usually young, inexperienced and quite often bored out of their minds. Generally speaking life in an infantry unit is one usually of tedium broken up by training or, more likely, cleaning. A running joke in my unit was that we were the toughest group of janitors in America and everyone should "Phear da'Mop!".

And yes we had impromptu "mop fights" where mops soaked with extremely filthy water would be used like pugil sticks or bayonets. And yes Article 15's were issued over this. *shrug* stuff happens. But the nonsense outlined by Beauchamp?

Extremely doubtful.

Mr. Fusion,

"If you feel so strongly about Bush's dirty little war, then why don't you volunteer to fight so some parents child may come home."

Here's another suggestion; Why don't you volunteer for armed service and REFUSE to fight?

I despise those who refuse to lay anything on the line for what they say they believe. Muhammed Ali truly stood up for his beliefs, as his actions proved.

People that do not deign to serve yet reserve the right to dissent AND the privelege to criticize without cost to themselves are mere lampreys on the social body.

Megan,

Another point you ignore -- this TNR/Beauchamp business is at least the fourth almost certainly fraudulent story undermining the Iraq War:

* Rathergate
* Lancet/John Hopkins Iraqi war death statistics
* "Ranger" Jesse McBeath's atrocity stories

Not to mention all the staged or photoshopped photographs that have been published to garner sympathy for Muslim terrorists.

As far as I know, these bogus stories are a one-way street--they only work to undermine support for the War on Terror (or however wishes to call it). Many of us who support that war and are willing to debate its merits, resent having to fight this propaganda war as well.

I don't agree that there is a cozy, neutral place for you to complain about both sides as jerks.

As far as I know, these bogus stories are a one-way street--they only work to undermine support for the War on Terror (or however wishes to call it). Many of us who support that war and are willing to debate its merits, resent having to fight this propaganda war as well.

I generally agree with this statement but what do you say in response to the claims from the other side that the military fabricated stories of Jessica Lynch’s heroism and tried to cover up the cause of Pat Tillman’s death?

Good point, Thorley, and criticism is deserved. In the Jessica Lynch case, I expect that there was more than a touch of political correctness going on there. (Put another way, the military does not want to be in the position of reporting a woman tied to train tracks until rescued by big strong men.)

In Tillman's case, his actions were truly heroic, so the story wrote itself. Only on investigation did the manner of his death probably become apparent, and I would guess that the military was embarrassed at that point. (I've read that historically ca. 10% of all casualties were friendly-fire incidents, so it's not that unusual.) Also, there may have been a humanitarian aspect - losing a loved one is bad enough, but to friendly fire is even worse.

I'd also point out that neither of these cases involved smearing anyone, nor making up complete fabrications, but criticism is certainly deserved.

Hmmm.

Sorry but the whole Jessica Lynch saga wasn't due to the military but instead due to overeager journalists trying to get ratings. All of the nonsense that got put on paper and in the tv news was mostly pure speculation dressed up as news.

*shrug* like they do today with just about any other story you can imagine. How many times are we subjected to massive overkill on a story with many supposed "shocking new items" only to find out much later on that most of it was complete nonsense?

As for Pat Tillman I don't think I believe anybody unless they're under oath.

anony-mouse, you remain unconvincing. When asked to supply more than mere assertions, you assert that your assertions are true. You also add adjectives (and a bit of invective.) Thanks. A much better rebuttal is available just prior to your 1:44 PM response from 1charlie2.

I’m sure I’ll get painted otherwise, but if I have a dog in this hunt it’s not whether Beauchamp is telling the truth. I have no idea if that’s the case. What matters to me is that if seemingly reasonable people like Megan McArdle, who I think stand as close as you can get to being honest brokers in ideological disputes like this one, provide cover for the loudmouths on either side then there’s no hope for anything approaching a reasoned discourse on any political topic that generates appreciable heat.

Don’t mistake me, I’m pretty unambiguously a leftie – I just prefer honest argument to the kind of noise generated by warriors on both sides.

1charlie2, I’d say to you that you over-generalize about the left and you’re holding TNR to the wrong standard. The guy is blogging – I don’t see any difference between how TNR treated his blog posts and how any other such posting is treated at most other publications. Would you care to vouch for the accuracy of, say Ledeen and VDH over at the Corner? Again I’m not here to support Beauchamp, it’s the process that concerns me.

Perhaps the visceral reaction is due to the reporting that gives all the little details by Beauchamp - these details are supposed to give us the "true" insight as to what is "really" happening over in Iraq. But then niggling little details pop up that, well, CANNOT be true. Small point leading to larger implication: Beauchamp talked about finding "square-backed" 9mm spent shell casings, from which he postulated that these were from Glocks, which ONLY the Iraqi police had....implication that those shot were shot by the Iraqi police. First, does anyone think the anti-Iraqi forces (insurgents, freedom fighters - whatever you want to call them) limit themselves to certain arms? ["Put down that Glock Akhmed! WE don't use THOSE!!"] or the "square backed spent shell casing from the suspect 9mm - Hey, ANYONE ever heard of a square backed shell? Gee, ignoramus that I am, I thought common small arms rounds (bullet + casing) were - well - ROUND.

Imagine I write a "true" account of a newspaper newsroom - with centerfold-looking babes as assistant editors who routinely have a penchant for newbie cub reporters still wet-behind the ears. And we would explicitly plan our liberal slanted take on whatever Hillary wanted us to print - in-between passionate trysts on the editor's desk - with his blessing of course. Do you think experienced newspaper reporters would call BS on that? Or would they nod knowingly and say - "It must have happened - I cannot prove it did not..."

AemJeff: "when the people pointing their fingers are the sort intellectually dishonest, fundamentally unserious ideologues that are behind this particular campaign,"

To people who have been in the military, or who are now serving in Iraq, even on the same FOB as it turns out these "stories" came from, read them and they read like *fiction* it is not intellectually dishonest, fundamentally unserious ideologues who are pointing finger and saying this.

It's soldiers.

Oh, sure, there's a whole lot of pile-on going on. Still, the essential truth of it is that people who have been there, or who are there, read this and see it as a personal slander, that *this* is what it's like to be a soldier in Iraq.

I've not heard a single one of them deny that every unit doesn't have at least a couple people who might do what is described. *READ* the criticisms from those in the military. They will point out that driving a Bradly in the way described is likely to piss off locals and slip a track, as well as get the driver in trouble for not being careful about IED's. Not that a driver couldn't do those things, but that they'd have *consequences* if the driver did them. Read what the military people say about reducing a woman with a "melted face" to tears in the DFAC. Other than the technicalities (the impossibility of a soldier *not* recongizing a uniform, etc.,) and the argument isn't that no one would be that mean, but that soldiers generally *aren't* and usually wouldn't be and that if someone *was* that there would be consequences. At the very least Beauchamp would be assigned more lawn, garden, and janitorial duties. That is if someone didn't lay him out flat before official notice became an issue.

Soldiers read this and say, "No way is this true."

The BIG LIE in Beauchamp's stories is that he portrays an Army that views him, Beauchamp, with approval. That this is what real military life is like.

And soldiers highly invested in their professionalism take that personally.

So call them "intellectually dishonest, fundamentally unserious ideologues" if you like but be honest about who you are tarring with that brush.

Sorry but the whole Jessica Lynch saga wasn't due to the military but instead due to overeager journalists trying to get ratings. All of the nonsense that got put on paper and in the tv news was mostly pure speculation dressed up as news.

Great point, memo. That would also account for the PC twist. I should have thought of that.

I have no idea if that’s the case.

Fair enough, Jeff. I have no idea either. But that's the point, isn't it? Think of the magazine as a prosecutor (which here is pretty close to the case) and Beauchamp as a witness. The prosecutor calls Beauchamp, who hides behind a screen and accuses you (say) of child molestation. Then the prosecutor turns to the jury and asks, "What say you, guilty, or extremely guilty?"

Beauchamp was not only not sworn to tell the truth, but he was faceless and anonymous until smoked out, no one has had a chance to question him, none of the accused have had a chance to speak in their defense. And now, no matter what happens, there will always be people who will believe the accusation.

Apart from that, the process has been pretty fair.

I believe that the officers who lied about Pat Tillman's death were fired. Lost their careers over it.

I hadn't realized something... I believe that Pat Tillman's brother was with the group that fired on Pat Tillman's group.

There is NO WAY anyone could have expected to cover the fact of friendly fire from the family if that is true. A family member witnessed it.

Another person was killed in the event and two other American soldiers were wounded. Granted, the other person who died isn't an American and doesn't really count. (Or it seems that way, which I think is despicable.)

Ok, I started this, I didn’t expect to get into the weeds with it, but I’m here by my own choice, so I’ll take on every polite argument.

Synova, you over-generalize. It isn’t “soldiers,” it’s “there are soldiers who…” Also the objections being made are under-specified. A much better criticism of Beauchamp, in my opinion, would be that he makes a lot of un-falsifiable claims. That’s not the same thing as making false claims. The “unlikelihood” of particular claims is arguable and unconvincing. Also it isn’t “soldiers” who are “behind this particular campaign,” although undoubtedly some of those behind it are soldiers. It is, to name a few, Michelle Malkin, Scott Johnson, Hugh Hewitt, various Cornerites, etc… They have counterparts on the left, to be sure, but in this case these are the folks responsible.

Occam, the “point” is that merely raising a concern isn’t enough. Anybody can make an assertion. If every author had to respond to every unsupported assertion that could be raised against his work, then nobody would write anything. I don’t say don’t question the guy’s truthfulness, I say raise a valid point. All I’ve seen is innuendo and unsupported opinion.

AemJeff,

I think you need to clarify your position. To continue from where Occam's Beard left it, I see Beauchamp not so much as a witness, but as the prosecuting attorney. HE raised the charges to us, who I see as the judge or jury. Those members of the military who have challenged the story appear to me as the defense.

Do you agree with assigning people to these relative positions? Or do you think Beauchamp is a defendant? If so, why? And of course, I realize this isn't a court case, but that's why I describe them as "relative" positions.

Accusers need to bring proof, defenders only need to sow reasonable doubt, at least as I see it.

anony-mouse, you remain unconvincing. When asked to supply more than mere assertions, you assert that your assertions are true. You also add adjectives (and a bit of invective.) Thanks. A much better rebuttal is available just prior to your 1:44 PM response from 1charlie2.

That's a lot of chutzpah for someone who entered the conversation with loaded words like these:

Particularly when the people pointing their fingers are the sort intellectually dishonest, fundamentally unserious ideologues that are behind this particular campaign, the correct response is to push back - they should have to back up their assertions before anyone takes them seriously. Otherwise they're just wagging the dog, and they'll do it as often as they can in support of an ideological mission.

You don't see an inconsistency between the standards you were willing to apply to yourself, and the standards you are now applying to others?

Moreover, since when did Beauchamp's extraordinary claims become gospel, and the onus of proof rest on those demanding the extraordinary evidence? I fear you have that backwards.

Back to the other: the reason I did not provide for you a complete list of the evidences against his claims is that it has already been done to death in this discussion thread, and in the three discussion threads on this site that proceeded it. I am sorry if you came late to the discussion and were unaware of this, but that being the case, it does you no credit to enter the conversation with smarmy talk like that quoted above, when serious discussion points were already on the table.

Tom, it’s a pretty weak analogy. See my last post I think I was pretty explicit.

Mouse, chutzpah I’ve got in spades. Either you accept that an assertion isn’t enough or you don’t. Nothing posted here exceeds that standard. If you’ve read my (now copious) postings on this here, you’d have seen that I don’t hold anything written by Beauchamp to be “gospel.” I’ve been saying his detractors have been less than convincing.

Mouse, chutzpah I’ve got in spades. Either you accept that an assertion isn’t enough or you don’t. Nothing posted here exceeds that standard. If you’ve read my (now copious) postings on this here, you’d have seen that I don’t hold anything written by Beauchamp to be “gospel.” I’ve been saying his detractors have been less than convincing.

Yes, you HAVE been saying that, and you've been doing it without providing evidence that his detractor's claims are wrong, which certainly tickles the irony meter a bit.

If every author had to respond to every unsupported assertion that could be raised against his work, then nobody would write anything.

I’ve been saying his detractors have been less than convincing.

Jeff, I think we're getting somewhere now. The nub of the disagreement seems to concern who bears the burden of proof. As I understand it (and not to put words in your mouth) you're at least implicitly recognizing a "first mover" advantage, i.e., believing whoever speaks first gets the benefit of the doubt, and those who disagree need to prove the first mover is mistaken or misrepresenting the situation.

The flaw in that perspective, insofar as it accurately reflects your perhaps subconscious thinking (and it may not, I recognize), is that it's difficult to believe that a similar first mover advantage would obtain for someone who raised allegations of the opposite political polarity.

A more workable standard is that the person making the assertion bears the burden of proof. In this case, nothing Beauchamp said is worthy of belief until and unless he substantiates his allegations. No one needs to prove he's wrong – he (along with TNR and Foer) needs to prove he's right.

I think that that's a much more sensible standard. If Beauchamp said he saw the Loch Ness monster doing the backstroke up the Euphrates, who would believe him? You'd want more than his say so, right? If so, then we agree.

PS: I think the forensic analogy is actually very apt for a case that is being tried in the court of public opinion.

Occam, we are getting somewhere. We actually agree that the burden of proof is on the first mover. And on the second, etc… There’s also a reasonableness burden on all of the players. Let’s use your courtroom analogy. A witness is on the stand and answers his counsel’s factual question. Opposing counsel can’t just stand up and scream “Liar!” There has to a basis for the objection. It has to rise to a certain standard or it’s not likely to be heard. You can’t just “call bullshit.” And as I’ve said more than once, I haven’t heard any rejoinders in this case that rise to what I would consider an arguable standard.

Reading that back I see that "arguable standard" is kind of clumsy and ambiguous.

What I was trying to say is that I want to see arguments that rise to a standard of reasonableness, and so far little of what's been floated seems to conform to such a standard.

Jeff, great. I'm glad we're making progress.

We part paths on the requirement for the second mover to bear a burden of proof. That only happens after the first mover has borne his burden of proof, at which point - but not before - the burden shifts to the other side.

I agree with your point about courtroom procedure, but think a better analogy would be drawn to the outcome of the entire case. Suppose a witness made allegations, then slumped to the floor with a heart attack and died before being cross-examined. If that's all the prosecution had, the accused would have no case to answer, because he hadn't had a chance to confront his accuser.

That's kind of the situation here. The accuser has had his say, but the accused (whoever they may be) have not, and will not for some time. By then, the impression will have thoroughly soaked into the public's consciousness, where it will remain. That bell can't be unrung.

Moreover, if in a few months the accused soldiers are cleared, it will be page 34 news, right next to the stock prices, and in about the same size print, because then it won't be newsworthy.

That's just wrong. TNR should have thoroughly vetted the article first, to avoid perpetrating that injustice. That they don't have the goods to hand already proves that they didn't vet the story beforehand.

Occam, that’s really not what I said. What I said was go ahead and question the truth of any claim. Don’t expect anybody to feel you deserve a response, unless you actually have something valid to say. Simple claims of “BS!” and “I heard from somebody that that’s not very likely,” do not qualify as valid things to say.

I can’t make it any simpler than this.

BTW, the guy was writing a diary, essentially making blog entries. What makes you think that sort of subjective stuff is going to be fact checked? Not by TNR, not by NR, Weekly Standard or anyone else. Also since the noise machine geared up, TNR has obviously done some vetting. I don’t see any retractions. If Franklin Foer has any journalistic integrity problems, its going to be news to a lot of folks.

"Just because a number of people decide to point their fingers at something and assert that it's untrue or dishonest is an insufficient reason to start questioning the veracity of the author."

OK, I hereby pause from the debate to nominate this sentence as one of the dumbest things ever posted in the year of 2007. Do the people who write such sentences actually pay attention to the tripe they are inflicting on the rest of us, or did what was left of their brain commit suppuku out of shame when the last of their conscience departed and they committed themselves to being unthinking sociopaths? o_O

- S.P.M.

I'm honored. Do you actually understand the distinction between things asserted and facts? Do you make a habit of insulting people based on a misunderstanding of something they've said?

Aem Jeff,

Whether the guy was writing a diary or not is totally beside the point. He got TNR to print said diary as a factual story. He provided no proof that it was true, TNR did not go about trying to prove it was true, there is nothing there to back up what he said. With all that in mind, why would anyone expect the other side to have to prove this guy lied. This guy provided nothing that said his story was true yet one of the biggest and most respected magazines in the country took him at his word and printed it as if it were gospel.

With all that, then when others say that this is BS, the left says that they have to prove it is BS. Seems to me that the proof is required from the origin of the story, not the respondent. Beauchamp and TNR need to provide something to back up what he said and then the other side can respond to it.

As an example, if I print that you beat your wife and you then claim that you don't, what you are saying is that you then have to prove that you do not beat your wife. That is what your claim amounts to and it is ludicrous.

As an example, if I print that you beat your wife and you then claim that you don't, what you are saying is that you then have to prove that you do not beat your wife. That is what your claim amounts to and it is ludicrous.

If after all the words I've wasted here, you think that I'm saying that the burden of proof isn't on an author, then it's not possible for me to make my point.

In Afghanistan two women were wounded in an attack. The US helicoptered them to Baghram AFLD for treatment. The Taliban claimed they were taken there and forced to work in a brothel.

I know some of you may not beleive it, but its not US military policy to kidnap women and rape them.

What I said was go ahead and question the truth of any claim. Don’t expect anybody to feel you deserve a response, unless you actually have something valid to say. Simple claims of “BS!” and “I heard from somebody that that’s not very likely,” do not qualify as valid things to say.

Jeff, at the risk of sounding obtuse, I'm afraid I really don't understand your position. We agree that the burden of proof is on the author of an assertion. From that perspective, it seems to me that simply snorting "BS!" is a perfectly valid thing to say in response to an assertion. It's the (ahem) somewhat earthier equivalent of saying "Prove it!" Accepting someone's assertion without proof is the debating equivalent of a "gimme" in golf. Calling BS is then the equivalent of forcing him to prove he can actually make the putt (which he implicitly claimed he could make by asking for a gimme).

Also since the noise machine geared up, TNR has obviously done some vetting.

This is exactly my point. After the article was questioned, TNR decided to do what they should have done before publishing. Even if they got it right, it was luck; they didn't know they were right when they published (hoping doesn't count).

Ideally, Foer would have the goods in hand when he published. Then, when anyone questioned the veracity of the story, he'd have pulled out an existing file and blown critics out of the water. He obviously can't do that, so in essence he published the story on spec. And for that he should pay with his job, I believe.

Occam, actually, I think you’re asking a good question. My point of view seems simple enough, to me; but obviously I’m not doing very well at conveying it.

It’s easy to cast aspersions. If you want to call into question something someone has written, you need to do better than merely that. It’s perfectly ok to ask someone to validate their claims, but there has to be a specific complaint. Saying “Prove it!” or the earthier equivalent just begs the question: “Prove what, exactly?”

You have to pose a concrete problem, not mount an open ended assault. Otherwise nobody can ever make any factual claim. As soon as they do everybody with an axe to grind will start tossing off little bombs, the vaguer the better. The end result is there’s no marketplace of ideas, because nobody will be willing to make any sort of public claim. The object is to make useful, well formed, concrete arguments, with a basis in reality - just like what you want from the guy whose nose you’re holding to the grindstone. It has to be the same standard for everybody.

The problem I have with the specific set of complaints being directed at Beauchamp is that they’re vague, unproveable, based on false premises, and, I think, made in bad faith.

Take the “chasing down dogs with a Bradley” thing. A lot has been made about how that’s impractical, impossible, never done. The description provided by Beauchamp doesn’t lend itself to proof. (As I said many posts ago, the far better argument against Beauchamp is that his claims tend toward the un-falsifiable.) There are too many imponderables regarding circumstance, geometry, whatever, to ever give a proof, or to disprove that claim. Those who use it as an example of something which proves he’s lying, are not serious. They’re just trying to raise the temperature surrounding the discussion – it’s pure rhetoric, devoid of logic, which is why I claim it’s made in bad faith.

I think you’re being a little hard on Foer, BTW. We have no information regarding what private process Beauchamp’s pieces were subjected too, either before or after the fact. Also the assumption that it’s been established that he’s a liar still seems unsupportable.

His claims may be un-flasifiable, but there are many red flags. A chaplain handing out bibles in the market is against regulations, and would be big news. No one has claimed to ever see the badly wounded mystery women on a small base. No Iraqi has submitted a damage claim because a Bradley deliberately ran over his stall. One would think there would be simple ways to prove his claims.

The big issue is that no one ever complains about this action. No officer or NCO repremanded them for publicly and sexually harrassing a women. Even if your assumption is that everyone on FOB Falcon has been tuned into a father raping mother killer by George Bush, you at least have to assume that they all want to get home alive.

One thing they stress in all the counter-IED training I've had is that complacency kills and proper convoy formation is vital. One brad zooming off to run over strange objects puts the entire at risk, and the rest of the convoy as well. You may not care that I like to shoot cats with a flare gun, but would you let me do it in your kitchen?

Take the “chasing down dogs with a Bradley” thing. A lot has been made about how that’s impractical, impossible, never done...There are too many imponderables regarding circumstance, geometry, whatever, to ever give a proof, or to disprove that claim.

Here's the thing: if I told you I was causing my car (a Ford Escort) to jump up in the air and hit low flying birds while on the interstate, would you regard that as impossible to disprove? I suppose it's possible to build a car that could jump, and possible that I could use it that way, but likely? Realistic? Possible to do it without my passengers and other drivers noticing?

Calling that claim BS isn't raising the temperature, it's making a realistic assessment of my credibility. If you won't call BS on that, then you've abandoned all critical thinking.

Here's the thing: if I told you I was causing my car (a Ford Escort) to jump up in the air...

If you won't call BS on that, then you've abandoned all critical thinking.

Methinks we define critical thinking a bit differently from one another...

Well, I'm defining it here as roughly "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm not sure how you're defining it, though I'd like to know.

You could build a car that jumps at least a few feet, and you could smash random things with a Bradley, and you could swerve it at least to a limited extent. There's no law of physics forbidding any of these things.

But such things are unusual, physically at least somewhat difficult, dangerous, and would surely excite comment from witnesses--which, in the case of the Bradley, are present by definition, as passengers, a commander, or elsewhere in a convoy. Yet you seem to be prepared to accept it as "probably true" for the time being. What sort of account would you reject as "probably false"?

Among other things, it means using evidence rather than hearsay; and, it definitely doesn't mean thinking by analogy. Neither of us has any experience with a Bradley. I say this with some confidence about you because I doubt that somebody who did have that experience would have started with the personal car analogy; certainly not without a mention of their direct experience. If somebody were to jump out of the weeds and say "I've driven a Bradley, and it can/can't do X" You still don't know whether, firstly, if they're stretching the truth, or, seconly, if they're letting their biases affect what they say. The problem is that what we're trying to validate is too vague to get a definitive answer.

You're right that I've never driven a Bradley, although I have friends with both Iraq and armored cav experience.

I don't see how it makes a difference, though. If I did such experience--hell, if I was Pvt. Beauchamp's bunkmate and a Bradley driver for his unit--you would just write me off as possibly engaged in stretching the truth or letting my biases affect what I say. And of course Pvt. Beauchamp may have had the same stretching/bias problem.

Given that all we're working with is hearsay and possible truth-stretching, all I can do is evaluate what everyone says through the lens of my own limited knowledge. I know enough military lawyers to think that anyone driving a Bradley that way would have to deal with one of them.

Given that all we're working with is hearsay and possible truth-stretching, all I can do is evaluate what everyone says through the lens of my own limited knowledge.

You're right. Just don't call it critical thinking.

I'll call it Crumple-Horned Sorckack (sp?) if it makes you happy. I still don't believe Beauchamp's story actually happened (which is different from calling him a liar, although I lean in that direction).

OK, Jeff, let me see if I understand you. If someone said to Beauchamp, "I don't believe any body wore a piece of child's skull under his helmet. Prove that they did. Who was it? When and where was it?" then you'd be happy with that?

If so, that was kind of implicit in my calling BS. The technical term "BS" means (in my usage) "I want substantiating details, and ideally corroborating evidence and/or accounts from others."

I don't want a modern equivalent of the old Spanish Fly stories from high school, when it was always a friend of the raconteur's older brother who knew someone in the next town over, where this all happened. I want names, dates, places, and corroboration from others and/or corroborating evidence.

In this case, I gather that this is a relatively small unit, so Beauchamp should know at least of the alleged participants by name. (No point keeping mum now; the Army is going to sweat it out of him, rest assured of that.) He's a diarist, so he should know at least approximate dates.

Until I get that sort of substantiating detail, young Beauchamp's tales lie in the Spanish Fly category for me.

I think some of the framing has gotten lost here. I am not here to tell anybody what to think about Scott Beauchamp’s truthfulness. As I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t think there’s a good basis for a definite opinion on that. I’m talking about what the standard for publicly expressed skepticism (which I’m all for, BTW) should be; and, whether a particular charge, made in the public sphere, demands an answer. The significant point is that leveling ambiguous, vague, open-ended, or otherwise irresolvable questions does not constitute a serious attack, and doesn’t demand an answer. (And if the first mover has been ambiguous, vague, etc..., that’s a perfectly good reason to call them out.)

Make up your own private mind – when you make public charges, do it in good faith.

Make up your own private mind – when you make public charges, do it in good faith.

Jeff, that's exactly my advice to Beauchamp, Foer, Rather, Mapes, and Macbeth.

I'm thinking that Jeff gets a lot of invitations to invest in Bose-Einsteinium transdimensional interociters (with the vibraslap option). Can he prove there's no such thing?

Jeff seems to have the upper hand in this argument. I'm no expert on any of this, but when debaters have to resort to extremes of exagerated comparisons to defend their points, they are definitely on the losing side. This is the real problem with the attacks on Beauchamp, Foer, etc., here. It's the sheer smugness of certainty that Beauchamp must have made everything up. How can they possibly know that? It's certainly possible that he did, and the nature of the writing makes it hard to know one way or another, but none of the criticisms are actually convincing.

My only defense of Beauchamp and TNR is that it's important to publish these kinds of personal experiences and diaries. By their very nature they depend on a higher level of trust in the author, because they can't easily be verified. They are intended to give a window onto a world of personal experience, not stand as verified "facts on record". TNR and many other publications regularly publish such personal accounts. They come with an inherent "buyer beware" status that need not even be openly stated. Everyone knows how such accounts are not subject to anything approaching genuine journalistic verification. If people are skeptical, that's fine. But gross and direct accusations of fictionalizing these experiences seem grossly out of place given their very nature. Likewise, because the incidents in question involve illegal or punishable behavior, obviously the people in question are not likely to step forward to verify it. Everyone should just relax and take these accounts with a grain of salt. They are one person's version of their own personal experience. I wouldn't generalize that to the whole military, unless there were numerous independent accounts, not of Beauchamp's personal experience, but of similar experiences across the field of operations.

I was a bit too young for Vietnam, but I knew tons of vets just a tad older than me, and every single one of them reported far, far worse things done in the military, both witnessed and by them. I knew guys who bragged in detail about their own war crimes. I know most soldiers didn't act this way, but the myth of "baby killers" had a base of validity, as much as it got exagerrated and used as slander against the whole military. The Apocalypse Now view of war likewise has validity, even if exagerrated by such fictions. The sad fact is that war is indeed hell, and it brings out the worst in many men fighting. This is one of the reasons not to go to war unless absolutely necessary. Beauchamp's account barely goes to those worst cases, and I don't find it anything more than a reasonable account of what it feels like to slog through a war under very difficult and stressful conditions. It seems to me that these attacks on his truthfulness seem motivated by emotion rather than reason.

Good golly, somebody who agrees with me. I appreciate it, I was feeling a little lonely out here.

orxis avlns idophgz qbxd jwnfmyav kiotj xtmsnz

amhy zcuv msti gwjf uosihy pyrtwmn jzew http://www.ucqyndrkt.uyawkfxh.com

wvqrelxn blfqyn hqnuj szekmvpxa omqudyk kheu nqyodec [URL=http://www.tmfsjivgx.zksxyn.com]gschi bfmpuklxd[/URL]

rhmnayx foqhr zpaqstj dyjwep vfsjcokm svxajzrwm stqzgbpdm [URL]http://www.mokaxznw.gsrhqaz.com[/URL] fpeubg gflv

Very good site. Thank you!

Very good site. Thank you!

Good site. Thanks!!!

Good site. Thank you.

Good site. Thank you.

Nice site. Thanks!

Cool site. Thanks!!!

Cool site. Thanks!!!

Good site. Thanks.

Very good site. Thank you!

Very good site. Thank you!

Very good site. Thank you!

Comments are Closed.